Categories
United Kingdom

September 9, 1971 – enthusiasm for modelling

Fifty five years ago, on this day, September 9th, 1971,

“Whereas Bray had been highly sceptical of the World model, [UK Chief Scientific Advisor Alan] Cottrell had been enthused by its demonstration. Returning to Britain, he proposed that the British government develop a similar model, stating his belief that ‘Forrester’s approach is the most important development of its kind since Keynes’ general theory’.(117)

Given the centrality of Keynesianism in post-war economic policy, this was a significant claim. Heath, as his early enthusiasm for management science had revealed, had some interest in forecasting and simulation, and gave his permission for a scoping study on the feasibility of a British world model. Cottrell held a meeting on the subject at the Cabinet Office in September 1971, in which he had told the assembled civil servants that developing a global model for British purposes would require £50,000 and four staff. In response, an unnamed civil servant argued that the Treasury had a more sophisticated econometric model that it used for forecasting. Despite this criticism, the general idea of a global environmental model was well received, and further work was proposed.118 

Thomas Turnbull, 2018 – Project MUSE – Histories of Technology, the Environment and Modern Britain

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 326ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that it was obvious that there were significant environmental and economic challenges around not just energy provision, but well, everything.

The specific context was that the British state knew about the impending Limits to Growth report, and the chief scientist, Alan Cottrell, was interested. There had been a leak in the Observer already about the limits report, so this is in the context of mandarins and technocrats trying to figure out if these tools will be helpful to them. 

What I think we can learn from this is that the Limits to Growth report was influential before it was even published, and then derided as Malthus with a computer, because apparently human ingenuity will conquer all.

What happened next The chief scientific adviser after Cottrell, or the one after the one after Cottrell, was John Ashton, and he did raise the climate issue, but unfortunately the political leaders were simply not interested, and it waited until 1988 before the climate problem became an issue.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

September 9, 1947 – The Daily Worker talks about melting the ice-caps

September 9, 1971 – Stephen Schneider’s letter, and a World Model

September 9, 1971 – of Australian Prime Ministers and American scientists…

September 9, 1990 – classic (?) film Mindwalk released

September 9, 1997 – “Global Climate Information Project”

Categories
Interviews

Mic Wright on his book “Breaking: How the Media Works, When it Doesn’t, and Why it Matters”

Mic Wright, who you should follow on Bluesky, answers some questions, mostly about his new book “Breaking: How the Media Works, When it Doesn’t, and Why it Matters.”

1. As per your Bluesky photo “Who the fuck is Mic Wright?” 

I’m a writer, journalist, and media critic. I was born in Norwich and now live there again but have spent time in Cambridge, London, Manchester, and Dublin. I started out in journalism on a trade magazine called Pensions World – the only place I could get a job that paid rather than a glamorous internship that didn’t – before going on to be on staff at the technology magazine Stuff and the music magazine Q. I’ve written for every national newspaper besides The Daily Mail and The Daily Sport at one time or another. Since 2020, I’ve been writing the media criticism newsletter, Conquest of the Useless (a title I shamelessly nicked from an excellent Werner Herzog book). I also write a monthly media column for Byline Times and regularly contribute to The New World. 

2. Why did you write the book? 

After years of writing the newsletter, it was apparent that lots of readers had questions about how the media works. I’d always wanted to write a book and this seemed like the topic I was destined to take on. There’s also a paucity of media criticism in the mainstream these days. There was a time in the 90s and 00s when newspapers themselves still had media critics on staff. There’s definitely a need to scrutinise what the industry gets up to but self-examination isn’t one of its strengths. There’s too much of a tendency for journalists to babble about ‘speaking truth to power’ when that’s very often far from what they do on a daily basis. A lot of the media is absolutely delighted by proximity to power. 

The actual writing of the book took about six months. It covers all aspects of how the media works from how you become a journalist to what the future of journalism looks like with stops along the way to find out who runs the show, how interviews work, why there’s such a problem with ethics, what happens if you become the story, and a lot of other things besides. It was a fun book to write and has been a hard one to promote. It turns out writing something that is critical of every national newspaper as well as most of the broadcasters puts a crimp in your marketing plan. 

3. Is the UK media particularly bad? 

Short answer: yes. Long answer: It’s particularly bad in print and online because we have a very toothless, industry-backed regulator, but it’s a little better in broadcast than in the US. That said, the idea that our tabloids are uniquely beastly is really the product of a weird kind of angolocentric ego. Go to Germany and you’ll find their red tops are equally as bad and have as grim a history. What great news then that the Daily Telegraph is now owned by Axel Springer, publisher of Bild, which is like The Sun and The Daily Mail whizzed up in a blender. 

4. What can be done to make things better? 

A more effective and independent press regulator would be a great thing but I don’t think we have the political will or bravery to see that happen any time soon. In the meantime, being willing as individuals to speak up when we encounter stories that are badly reported or simply false is important. We can change the minds of people around us. That’s definitely the case with things like climate stories. If we point out how framing often leans on things like pictures of people having a lovely time on the beach even while the country is practically boiling alive, others will start to notice it too. My 94 year old grandmother has started questioning what she sees from the Daily Mail a lot more since she read my book. We can always learn new tricks and get wise to the ones that are being deployed against us. 

5. What next? 

I don’t know. But I have a few ideas for another book. It depends on how this one does. 

6. Any shout outs? 

I highly recommend Barry Malone’s newsletter, Proximities, which collects three essential non-Western news stories every week day. It’s a really good corrective to how narrow our window of interest can be sometimes. 

Breaking: How the Media Works, When it Doesn’t, and Why it Matters is out now in paperback. It’s also 99p on Kindle for this month only. 

Categories
Australia

September 8, 1989 – Deputy PM John Kerin on environment and economics

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, September 8th, 1989,

John Kerin (Deputy PM, Industry) gives a speech to CEDA on environment and economics (he cites it in his Nov 1, 1989 speech) 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 353ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that after almost two decades of warning about the greenhouse effect to Australian political elite, they were finally having to start talking about it very much in public.

In late 1988 and for the first few months of 1989, the opponents of action seemed quite flat footed, presumably simply waiting for it to burn itself out.

The specific context was And here we see Deputy Prime Minister John Kerin giving a speech on environment and economics, just as the penny is beginning to drop for the opponents of action that they’re gonna have to enter the fray that they can’t wait for this wave to die down.

What I think we can learn from this is that you should never take any event out of its context.

What happened next The Labor government decided to rat fuck environmentalism and environmentalists, and to side with the big end of town. By the mid 90s they were basically indistinguishable from the Liberals. The Liberals went off the deep end. Labor used the climate issue as a way to get back into power in 2007, then comprehensively fucked up the response, and has basically been running scared ever since, and under the thumb of big business, 

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

September 8, 1972 – Green activist vanishes off face of Earth…

September 8, 1990 – Australian #climate denialist spouting his nonsense…

September 8, 2000 – “Minchin’s Quiet Win”

September 8, 2014 – Lobster boat blockaders have charges dropped.

Categories
Science Scientists United Kingdom

 September 8, 1966 – John Houghton on Carbon Dioxide….

Sixty years ago, on this day, September 8, 1966, the Guardian reports on the latest meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science….

The Guardian (London, Greater London, England) · Thu, 8 Sept 1966 ·

Page 2

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 321ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that from the early 1950s the theory of carbon dioxide build-up had gained traction (its modern revival had begun in 1938, thanks to Guy Callendar)

The specific context was that by 1966 noises were being made in the USA about the problem, especially via the President’s Science Advisory Committee. 

This was not the first time the issue had been raised at a British Association for the Advancement of Science conference. Peter Ritchie-Calder had already spoken about carbon dioxide build-up as a problem – in 1963. 

What I think we can learn from this- people in the UK were aware of the problem by the mid 1960s, which is a bit earlier than I’d really realised when I started this project.

What happened next – John Houghton worked on a variety of things (his biography is very good) and finally, in 1982-3 became head of the Met Office, taking over from John Mason.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

September 8, 1972 – Green activist vanishes off face of Earth…

September 8, 1990 – Australian #climate denialist spouting his nonsense…

September 8, 2000 – “Minchin’s Quiet Win”

September 8, 2014 – Lobster boat blockaders have charges dropped.

Categories
Artificial Intelligence

Two ways to think about the slopocalypse and where they lead. Cognitive life-rafts?

I thought maybe I’d coined another neologism – “slopocalypse” – but it turns out someone beat me to the punch 13 months ago.

Slopocalypse Now – by Gary Marcus – Marcus on AI 

From slop + -pocalypse. Coined by American cognitive scientist and psychologist Gary Marcus in 2025.

See wikitionary –

slopocalypse (plural slopocalypses)

  1. (artificial intelligence, informal, neologism) A point where AI generated content becomes overwhelming, breaking safety standards and suffocating human produced content.

The idea of “data overload” is hardly new, of course – Neil Postman, Leonard Cohen and his “Blizzard”, but what is new here I guess is

  1. The sheer volume of the stuff
  2. The ease with which it is ‘generated’
  3. The ways it is omnipresent/insidious
  4. What it is doing to our ability to think, read, communicate etc, forcing us to doubt, to triple guess etc.
  5. The ‘my god, ‘it’s alive‘, face-hugging and all…

See also Cory Doctorow on enshittification and “digital asbestos”

There are different ways of thinking about the slopocalypse, of course, and those different ways will bring out different sets of emotions.


One is to imagine it as a huge wave, inescapable, like that footage of the doomed people scattering before the huge wall of water, mud, rocks etc in Nepal. It doesn’t matter who you are, how smart and nice you are, you’re all gonna die together (see Tom Lehrer’s song about that, and Paul Kelly’s).

Another is to think of it as a rapidly rising sea level, which will leave us all scrambling for higher ground, or lashing together makeshift life-rafts, like after the wreck of the Gericault. In this one we’ve given up on the late great Fred Jameson‘s “cognitive maps” (from his 1984 NLR essay) and are just trying to keep our heads above water and out of the way of all those USS Indianapolis sharks.

In this vision, it does matter how much ‘cultural capital’ (and other forms of capital, you have). As per a smart friend i will never meet- 

“But I do see my 17 year old daughter balancing videos and books so all hope is not lost (although she is from a well off well educated household with a mom who reads a lot. 

For the “liferaft-lashing” you need time, self-confidence, other people on the same wavelength, more or less the same skills etc.   And I suspect a perspective born of growing to adulthood before the “internet” came along (1996-1999), or, at absolute latest, before the coming of smart phones and social media (2008 onwards).  If you don’t have a beforetimes, you won’t know what you’ve lost?  I know this sounds “luddite”, but you know, the luddites had a point or three. Blah blah cohort effects blah blah Karl Mannheim…

Here endeth today’s brain vomit. I have to – have to – get back to knocking the vomit-draft chapters into something sane.

Categories
Energy

September 7, 1980 – Energy for Our World: Eleventh World Energy Congress

Forty six years ago, on this day, September 7th, 1980,

Energy for Our World: Energy supply – Google Books 

Energy for Our World: Eleventh World Energy Conference, Munich, 7–12 September, 1980

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 338ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that there had been World Energy Congresses for a while, because there’s policy to be planned, money to be made, hookers to be screwed, etc. After the 1973 oil shock, these questions of energy supply security had become more salient for rich nations, and you’d seen various organisations formed, most notably the International Energy Agency. By the 1980 World Energy Congress you start to see people turning up to talk about the possible problem of carbon dioxide build up. 

The specific context was the second oil shock (after the Iranian revolution) was underway. The hostages were still there, and the Carter-Reagan election was coming up…

What I think we can learn from this is that climate and energy have been intimately related, even though energy is more than just climate, and climate is much, much, much more than energy, there is significant overlap on the Venn diagram. 

What happened next All through the 80s, the climate scientists were getting more sure. They were speaking up, they were not being listened to, but finally in 1988 the problem became an issue.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

September 7, 1927 – television, the drug of a nation, first cultivated

September 7, 1936 – The Anthropocene does for the Thylacine…

September 7, 1977 – #climate scientist Stephen Schneider on Carson for the last time…

September 7, 1988 – media looking for more alarmist scientists…

September 7, 1993 – Business Council of Australia meets to get its resistance-to-climate-policy ducks in a row

September 7, 2005 – “rule out nuclear” say Aussie green outfits.

Categories
Science

September 6, 1984 – “Global vigil plan faces opposition,” reports FT

Forty two years ago, on this day, September 6th, 1984,

SCIENTISTS are divided over proposals for a grandiose global watch in which the world would be monitored from outer space to gather data on, for example, atmospheric pollution and the uses of land for crops or buildings.

The programme, to be debated by the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) at a meeting in Ottawa this month, would co-ordinate satellite projects in different countries and encompass a range of scientific disciplines.

Dr Thomas Malone, ICSU’s treasurer and one of the co-ordinators of the Ottawa gathering, says the programme would focus space technologies on the earth’s problems.

But Britain’s Royal Society, the “club” for eminent UK scientists which is one of ICSU’s 70 or so members, is against the proposal on the grounds that it would engender bureaucracy and waste scientific resources.

The scheme is a long way from being adopted. ICSU has little money of its own and financial support for the project would have to come from government institutions.

Marsh, P 1984. Global vigil plan faces opposition. Financial Times, September 6, p.4

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 345ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was was that even though there was a cold war going on, and the nuclear brinksmanship had almost caused Armageddon in September of 1983, nonetheless the environmentalists, who had gotten a little bit organised in the 1970s (see, for example, the birth of Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the First World Climate, the Stockholm Conference, the First World Climate Conference, the existence of UNEP, SCOPE, etc) were pushing for sure better monitoring of environmental issues, more generally, one of them, not high on the list, but definitely one of them was the build up of carbon dioxide. Others were ozone depletion, extinction of species, marine oil pollution, etc, etc.

The specific context was the FT was reporting on the pushback against this, probably led by the thugs within the Reagan administration. “Trees cause pollution.” Xxx

What I think we can learn from this is that awareness of environmental global environmental degradation is not something that’s only sprung to life in the last 15 or 20 years. We have known for longer than most people on the planet have been alive (median age globally 31ish).

What happened next the 1985 G7 declaration included some mention of climatic change, but it was not until 1988 that the issue really broke through, and the scientific problem became a political issue. 

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

September 6, 1979 – Exxon supports American Petroleum Institute on “do nothing” about climate

September 6, 1991 – Titan has a greenhouse effect…

September 6, 2000 – Emission scheme defeated, it’s time for a gloating press release… #Climate #auspol

September 6, 2007 – “The Future of Coal under Cap and Trade” hearings…

Categories
Australia

September 5, 1990 – “emissions reductions targets will strengthen the economy” says Australian Env Minister

Thirty six years ago, on this day, September 5th, 1990,

Targets to reduce greenhouse gases would strengthen the Australian economy, not cripple it, according to the Minister for the Environment, Ms Kelly.

Speaking to a Metal Trades Industry Association seminar, Ms Kelly made a preliminary sortie in the battle she will fight with her Cabinet colleagues next Monday to try to persuade them to set targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Ms Kelly said a report for her department by Deni Greene Consulting Services showed that a 20 per cent reduction in greenhouse emissions by 2005 “is not only possible, it is pretty easy to obtain”.

Industry groups have been lobbying the Government hard in recent days against setting a target to reduce emissions, which they argue could dramatically increase costs.

Garran, R. 1990. Kelly sees big savings in cutting greenhouse gases. Australian Financial Review, 6 September, p. 5.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 354ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the greenhouse effect had burst onto the public scene around the world, but especially in Australia, in 1988. There were now fierce debates about what was to be done. In March of 1990 there had been a federal election, and the Liberal Party had had a more ambitious emissions reduction target than Labor. Yes, that’s true.

The specific context was that here, just as the Ecologically Sustainable Development policy making process was about to kick off, we see a speech about how emissions reductions targets will not weaken the economy but strengthen it. This was a narrative that was hated and challenged repeatedly, usually by commissioning so-called independent reports, which could be thumped down on the table, “Our modelling shows that dot dot dot”.

What I think we can learn from this is that we could have had nicer things, we could have delayed a greenhouse warming, but the powers of darkness, the forces of well, evil, were stronger, and they won the day, and the week, and the month, and the year, and the decades.

But they will not win eternity. Well, they will, if their aim was to cause mayhem.

What happened next The following month the Australian Government agreed to a version of the Toronto Target, but with so many caveats that it was rendered useless. This agreement was simply so the Environment Minister could go to the second World Climate Conference in Geneva with something in her hand. 

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

September 5, 1986 – a “Safe Energy” rally, in London

September 5, 1990 – Australian Environment Minister promises deep carbon cuts – “easy”…

September 5, 1995 – Australian Aluminium Council joins “Greenhouse Challenge”

September 5, 2004 – John Howard gloats about cooking the planet

September 5, 2005 – protest about the brown coal in Melbourne

September 5, 2005 – Anthony Albanese introduced “Avoiding Dangerous Climate #Change” private member’s bill

Categories
Australia Energy

September 4, 2014 – Labor Senators help repeal large scale Energy Efficiency Opportunities program

Twelve years ago, on this day, September 4th, 2014,

On Thursday Labor Party Senators lined up with the Government, Palmer United Party and crossbench independent senators to repeal the large-scale Energy Efficiency Opportunities (EEO) program set up with bipartisan support in 2006 under the Howard Government. In a division in the Senate of 55 votes to 10, only the Greens Senators opposed the dumping of this program which had made substantial business energy savings of over $800 million dollars and 8.21 megatonnes reduction in carbon emissions.

The Energy Efficiency Opportunities program was recognised by the International Energy Agency as a world-class program helping businesses to save energy and a key element of energy efficiency policy framework and in addressing climate change.

http://takvera.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/labor-votes-with-government-to-dump-key.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 399ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the previous eight years had been an exhausting series of battles – legislative, political, cultural – in the climate wars in Australia, but ultimately the forces of stupidity had prevailed, as they so often do. Tony Abbott, as Prime Minister, had repealed much of the legislation within Julia Gillard’s Clean Energy Package, especially, for example, the actual emissions trading scheme. 

The specific context was – here you see Labor senators, there aren’t that many of them after the 2013 electoral wipe-out, accepting political realities and voting to abolish the large scale energy efficiency opportunities programme. Energy efficiency is always hated and derided, even though there were and still are significant savings to be made.

What I think we can learn from this – is that there is no depth of stupidity we won’t sink to.

What happened next is that the culture war over climate has never really ended, that we are not smart enough collectively to fix this, and that doom is coming. If the social movement organisations had learned how to harness emotion and to create opportunities for legitimate peripheral participation, and had avoided being co-opted, repressed, or exhausted things might – might – have been a bit different, i.e. the horrors would have been delayed.

But they didn’t, and the horrors have not been delayed. The horrors are here with us now, and they’re only just warming up.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

September 4, 1969 – Ivory Tower types tell the truth at ANU

September 4, 1990 – Industry whines about environment minister’s speech

September 4, 2000 – industry says sky will fall if there’s a carbon tax

September 4, 2006 – Royal Society to Exxon: “Knock it off with the funding to #climate deniers”

September 4, 2007 – Climate Change Coalition launches

Categories
Antarctica International Geophysical Year

September 4, 1956 – No A-Bomb for Antarctica

Seventy years ago, on this day, September 3, 1956, the (Manchester) Guardian reports that there won’t, in fact, be an A-bomb exploded in Antarctica as part of the upcoming International Geophysical Year.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was xxxppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that this was the 1950s. Anti-nuclear movements weren’t really a thing yet, and “McCarthyism” was keeping opposition quiet. And most people were either Promethean or indifferent? idk.

The specific context was that the International Geophysical Year was about to kick off, and some boffins were getting a little grant-happy/delirious.

What I think we can learn from this

We are insane hairless murder apes, only occasionally restrained by our better angels.

What happened next

Bombs didn’t get used for THIS.  Other plans (canals etc) were afoot.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

September 4, 1969 – Ivory Tower types tell the truth at ANU

September 4, 1990 – Industry whines about environment minister’s speech

September 4, 2000 – industry says sky will fall if there’s a carbon tax

September 4, 2006 – Royal Society to Exxon: “Knock it off with the funding to #climate deniers”

September 4, 2007 – Climate Change Coalition launches